15 comments:

As he should be, and not just for assaulting someone who presented no threat to himself or anyone else but because he was driving a massive vehicle without care and attention creating a risk to everyone on the vehicle and road.

If he wanted to apprehend the presumed thief he should have done so without trying to drive the vehicle and without being violent with no cause.

You are wrong. The trouble with you soft headed morons is that you bully those who are victims as well as those who try to assist the victims. That thief deserves nothing. You deserve nothing but contempt for your silly sympathies.

Fentex, I hear what you're saying, but I think we can cut the driver some slack for acting "in the heat of the moment". It would not be right to plot revenge for a week then go around to the thieves house and beat him. But having recently had my container broken into and had bikes, tools, riding gear stolen I can say if I had been there and had opportunity they might have received more than a couple of swats with a stick.

Also depending on conditions it might be quite safe to administer some correction while driving a bus, at other times it would be idiotic. We can not assess those conditions from this clip.

I think we can cut the driver some slack for acting "in the heat of the moment".

Suppose for a moment that while driving a bus, not watching the road, and swinging a club at someone, the driver runs into and kills a pedestrian.

Do you suppose that pedestrians family should still cut the driver some slack?

Being all excited because you're entertained at seeing a no-good bag snatcher getting their comeuppance is no excuse for anyone involved acting irresponsibly towards everyone else around them.

That sort of stupid thing where individuals adrenaline fuelled bravado compounds harm and injury is exactly why we take efforts at justice out of every hotheads hands and place it in a system designed to distance judgement from anger.

And while we're on the subject of responsibility; this blog promotes the supposed rational position of Libertarianism and benefits of objective reasoning about the world.

Yet in this posting lauds stupid and dangerous behaviour because it delights juvenile instincts for whipping transgressors by actions representing a clear and present danger to the safety, autonomy and individual liberties of many bystanders.

Like many other such posts I think it calls the authors commitments to the ideals of Libertarianism into question as yet again they seem to think what momentarily pleases them trumps others rights the ideology should support.

"Suppose for a moment that while driving a bus, not watching the road, and swinging a club at someone, the driver runs into and kills a pedestrian."

But that did not occur. Deal with reality and not what your imigination generates.

...."why we take efforts at justice out of every hotheads hands and place it in a system designed to distance judgement from anger."

We take efforts? Speak for yourself whiteboy!

What YOU are involved in is the denial of individual rights in favour of the imposition of an artificial authority over individuals. It has nothing to do with justice what you parasites and your "system" does. That is just weasel words from you there. You are making up excuses for your victimisation of good and moral people.

What about the 'rights' of the purse owner? what about the 'rights' of decent respectable people not to be victims of criminals?

As John Galt puts it in his speech - we have sacrificed justice for mercy.

A good example is this low life who tried to snatch a purse in Auckland and put that woman in hospital a couple of weeks back - you can almost guarantee he will get 50 hours PD, a pat on the head, and the Judge telling everyone what a poor victim of government policies and poverty he is.

Where I agree completely with you that justice needs to be done, and seen to be done, I do agree with Fentex that it is inappropriate for a bus driver to act as judge, jury and executioner in delivering said justice.

Especially given his reckless disregard for the safety of his passengers (to which he has a moral obligation) and the safety of other pedestrians.

Wreckless disregard? According to whom? According to you is it? Who appointed you as arbiter of safety, morality and so forth? Dolf, you wasn't even there. The driver, on the other hand, he was. He made an assessment and it was correct. The passengers were not injured. The passenger's property was not taken. The thief was frustrated, humiliated and captured. All good. More of it I say. And less of your whinging dribble shit.

It is my understanding that the law requires the operator of a vehicle to actually pay attention to operating said vehicle while it is in motion.

Now you may disagree with the law and given your general anarchist tendencies I expect you to. But that is a separate discussion, As it stands the bus driver was negligent in his actions. The fact that he got lucky and nobody got hurt does not mean that what he did was not wrong.

I admit, I take quite a bit of pleasure out of the whole thing, and had I been the bus driver I cannot in honesty say that my actions would be different.

However as a libertarian minarchist, I do subscribe to the "Non initiation of force" principle. Which as you well know states that the only acceptable use of force is in the defence of myself or others in immediate danger.

Given that , as you yourself state, the thief was caught and humiliated, the use of the club was an excessive use of force, and while it does not, in my opinion, warrant an arrest, I would expect the police to have a word with the driver.

One quick question: Would you have been okay if one of the passengers beat the bus driver with a club because he was not looking at the road? The law is the law, and if a beating with a club by a random citizen is an acceptable punishment for breaking it, then I can go around whacking jaywalkers with a hockey stick, and you'd be OK with it?

And so now you are an expert in Chilean law? I seriously doubt you are that at all. Anyway, all that "law" stuff is mostly arbitrary anyway.

As far as the busdriver was concerned, where did you get the idea he was negligent from? He protected his passengers. None were injured or hurt and none lost their property. Hardly negligent. Well done that man!

"Would you have been okay if one of the passengers beat the bus driver with a club because he was not looking at the road?"

That would be an initiation of force. Clearly so. There is no similarlity or analogy between that imaginary and wholly fictious situation what you conjured up out of your head and that which actually happened on the bus.

State law is an arbitary man made. It is not supernatural or deserving any special reverence. It is merely a tool of man to apply, or not, according to type and circumstances.

Amit

Amit

The club was a part of the humiliation. It was also an educational experience for the thief.

1. Commenters are welcome and invited. 2. All comments are moderated. Off-topic grandstanding, spam, and gibberish will be ignored. Tu quoque will be moderated.3. Read the post before you comment. Challenge facts, but don't simply ignore them.4. Use a name. If it's important enough to say, it's important enough to put a name to.5. Above all: Act with honour. Say what you mean, and mean what you say.